Y U NO JS ACTIVATED? JAVASCRIPT DISABLEDWe get it. We often have problems with Javascript ourselves. We also congratulate you on your choice to view the Web safely by turning off scripting. However, to view, navigate, and use this site properly, you must enable Javascript. Otherwise, your experience here will be lacking. (Gets down from soap box.)

There's an adage in economics that goes: people do not walk barefoot because there aren't any government shoe factories. In markets where competition exists (not to be confused with free markets), businesses compete for customers and customers make choices. The methods that ethical businesses use to compete for your wallet-share include factors like quality, cost, and distribution/access. If the businesses don't provide value to their customers (assuming they aren't protected by government in the form of corporatism), they go out of business. It's pretty simple. In contrast, government-run markets haven't any need to compete for your wallet-share. After all, they have the law... and guns to back it up.

Now, there's no question that public schools have more issues they are forced to deal with by government laws and regulations than private schools. For example, public schools can't generally expel disruptive students under 17 or suspend them for more than 5 consecutive days. But it certainly does lead to many questions about why public schools aren't allowed to deal with disruptive students more effectively. Private schools, to some extent, get the ability to choose who they accept into their business. Public schools don't get to make that choice - if you live in the defined geography, they are required to take your child. As a result, public schools also have to deal with the very difficult problem of many children with different learning abilities.

But are government-run schools really the answer, or could the private market deal with the multitude of problems better (e.g., through specialization/division of labor)? Do you think the author's vision of how government-run supermarkets would operate is accurate? If government-run markets are so good, why do they require force to operate? How have politics made the school system dysfunctional? If supermarkets were run like public schools, would more people have to take up farming and grow their own food? How do we provide more competition and, thus, more choices, in education?

Teachers unions and their political allies argue that market forces can't supply quality education. According to them, only our existing system-politicized and monopolistic-will do the trick. Yet Americans would find that approach ludicrous if applied to other vital goods or services.

Suppose that groceries were supplied in the same way as K-12 education. Residents of each county would pay taxes on their properties. Nearly half of those tax revenues would then be spent by government officials to build and operate supermarkets. Each family would be assigned to a particular supermarket according to its home address. And each family would get its weekly allotment of groceries-"for free"-from its neighborhood public supermarket.

No family would be permitted to get groceries from a public supermarket outside of its district. Fortunately, though, thanks to a Supreme Court decision, families would be free to shop at private supermarkets that charge directly for the groceries they offer. Private-supermarket families, however, would receive no reductions in their property taxes.

Of course, the quality of public supermarkets would play a major role in families' choices about where to live. Real-estate agents and chambers of commerce in prosperous neighborhoods would brag about the high quality of public supermarkets to which families in their cities and towns are assigned.

Being largely protected from consumer choice, almost all public supermarkets would be worse than private ones. In poor counties the quality of public supermarkets would be downright abysmal. Poor people-entitled in principle to excellent supermarkets-would in fact suffer unusually poor supermarket quality...

We all admire beauty, but the mind ultimately must be stimulated for maximum arousal. Longevity in relationships cannot occur without a meeting of the minds. And that is what Braincrave is: a dating venue where minds meet. Learn about the thoughts of your potential match on deeper topics... topics that spawn your own insights around what you think, the choices you make, and the actions you take.

We are a community of men and women who seek beauty and stimulation through our minds. We find ideas, education, and self-improvement sexy. We think intelligence is hot. But Braincrave is more than brains and I.Q. alone. We are curious. We have common sense. We value and offer wisdom. We experiment. We have great imaginations. We devour literacy. We are intellectually honest. We support and encourage each other to be better.

The Braincrave.com discussion group on Second Life was a twice-daily intellectual group discussions typically held at 12:00 PM SLT (PST) and 7:00 PM SLT. The discussions took place in Second Life group chat but are no longer formally scheduled or managed. The daily articles were used to encourage the discussions.